Guest guest Posted December 15, 2001 Report Share Posted December 15, 2001 Dear Vinayak, Wise words, but I think here you have picked the word ¡°sanyas¡± in a bit narrower sense. Lord Krishna points clearly what is meant by sanyas.--- Perform your duties and leave the fruits to Lord. However i agree that this word ¡°Sanyasi¡± is commonly associated to the brahmchari¡¯s, or those who do not marry. Sayings of Swami Vivekananda which are seemingly paradoxic, are definitely not. It actually helps us not to be opinionated about something, which we have not properly understood. Although Swami Vivekananda was a sanyasi, his master was a house holder in the sense that you seem to be talking about, but you cannot find a better example of " sanyasi " then Sri Ramakrishna. Sri Ramakrishna gave up everything in his service to God and that is what is duty and aim of human life and more appropriate meaning of ¡°sanyas¡±, ¡°giving up¡± or ¡°renunciation¡±. No body in the mailing list would ever doubt the respect swami had for his master (who indeed was a Narayana for him) , and his love could be easily regarded as the purest of Love. Although Masters like Sri Krishna, Sri Ramkrishna, Mahatma and others were house holder still they were suitably ¡°sanyasi¡± on account of their Karma¡¯s, those who abandoned the ignorance and their duties were different in no regard then that of Swami Vivekanada or Lord Budha. There's no issue in jumbling over the meaning of word ¡°sanyas¡± or ¡°house holder¡± as this words are of less importance unless the core of swami¡¯s preaching cannot be understood, worshipped and practiced. Hope it works for you. With Love, Its nice to find you out here in this e-group, Rahul >Ramakrishna >Ramakrishna >Ramakrishna >[sri Ramakrishna] Digest Number 991 >15 Dec 2001 13:35:02 -0000 > >Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah >Vivekananda Centre London >http://www.vivekananda.co.uk >------ > >There are 6 messages in this issue. > >Topics in this digest: > > 1. Sanyasis and Grahasths > Vinayak Lohani <vinayaklohani > 2. RE: itti... or neti.... > " Goel, Anurag (CORP, GEITC) " <anurag.goel > 3. Sanyasis and Grahasths > Vinayak Lohani <vinayaklohani > 4. (unknown) > sesirekha palle <sesirekhap > 5. Re: [Re: Re: chanting the divine name 108 times!!] > hiro bachani <hirorajni > 6. VML-12/14/01 > ananta <sarada > > >______________________ >______________________ > >Message: 1 > Fri, 14 Dec 2001 01:47:59 -0800 (PST) > Vinayak Lohani <vinayaklohani >Sanyasis and Grahasths > > >Pranam, > > Here i would like to know the opinion of the group as >this group comprises both Sanyasis and Grahasths.I have been largely >inspried by the works of Swami Vivekanada particulalrly his message of >'Service to God through Service to Man'. > >But I have found some of his statements confusing with regard to the issue >of sanyasis and grahasths and belittling the householders.Of course it >could be I who has failed to understand those lines fully. In 'Complete >Works of Vivekananda' Vol. 5,the Swami says " its impossible for >householders to realise Brahmo as being in the world and realising Brahmo >are two mutually contradictory things. " > >Similarly, in another Volume he says that he won't trust God if Narayan >comes in the form of householders.What did Swami Vivekananda mean in this >passages? Haven't many exalted people whom we regard as GOD incarnate like >Ramchandra ji, Shri Krishna themselves had been houselholders though they >still did their duties towards the world.If the author of 'Geeta' which >preaches renunciation and union with Brahmo himself can be a >householder,how could the Swami say what he said. Moreover in all ages >there have been men who had been householders but still served the world >and had a great message for the world.In our own age we can take example of >Gandhiji and others. Similarly there have been a number of Sanyasis who >have been embodiments of egoism,demanding obeisance,having self-vanity, >which is just opposite to the goal of spiritual realisation. There have >been Sanyasis in India right from Vedic ages.Then why did vices like >untouchability and Sati prevail in India and were condoned and in many >cases practised by these Sanyasis. > >What I am saying is that the duty of a Sanyasi is different from the duty >of a householder,they both can be great in their own right.Their greatness >should be judged by how they perform their own duty. > >Regards, > >Vinayak > > > > > >Check out Shopping and Auctionsfor all of your holiday gifts! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.